GUJARAT NAVODAYA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gujarat Navodaya Mandal, a registered society, registered under theSocieties Registration Act as well as Bombay Public Trusts Act has filed the present petition to challenge the order passed by the respondent No. 2 - Chief Wild Life Warden on 8/08/1997 in favour of respondent No. 4 - Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as R.P.L., for short).

(2.) Respondent No. 4 R.P.L. has undertaken "Motikhavdi Refinery Project" for the production of petroleum products. Respondent No. 4 R.P.L. in order to function the said project has to import crude oil by seafare and then to refine the same, and to produce the petroleum products in their refinery. For that purpose, they first applied on 2/09/1992 for getting clearance of their project from the State Government. By its communication dated 1-10-1992, the State Government agreed to, to give clearance and supported the said project of the R.P.L. On 19/11/1992, the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (G.P.C.B.) also issued necessary N.O.C. for the purpose of setting up the project of R.P.L. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 R.P.L. approached the Environment Department of the Government of India on 17/07/1996 in order to get clearances under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Government of India gave said clearance on certain conditions on 15/09/1995. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 applied for the permission under Sec. 2 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and Sec. 2(ii) of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. After getting such clearance the respondent No. 4 approached the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 has passed the order in this regard on 8/08/1997 by which he has permitted laying of pipeline in Marine National Park/Sanctuary, Jamnagar which is challenged by the present petitioner in'this petition.

(3.) It is the claim of the petitioner that said order is purported to have bee passed under Sec. 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is the contentio of the petitioner that in the permission granted and the work which the respondei No. 4 R.P.L. is to undertake in pursuance of the said order, would not fall withi the purview of Sec. 29. Consequently, the respondent No. 2-the Chief Wild Lit Warden has no jurisdiction to pass the said order. It is further contended by th petitioner that the said order is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. It contended by the petitioner that said order will cause damage to the forest as we as to the marine life and would also cause damage to the environment. Thus, it claimed that respondent No. 4's project will have disastrous effect on ecology an environment. Therefore, in the circumstances, the petitioner is seeking an order from this Court to strike down the order dated 8/08/1997 by holding that tr respondent No. 2 has no power to pass such an order.